Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should we take some sort of affirmative action on climate change?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm all for reducing our present reliance on fossil fuels. We are going to need them all when the next ice-age starts, both to keep warm and to power the massive civil construction projects required to re-locate cities and port infrastructure (large falls in sea level).

    Ask any geologist, greenhouse conditions are a whole lot more habitable for humans than ice-ages.

    Comment


    • To put all this peer review stuff in perspective, several of the Australian journals I've published in have an H Index (impact factor) in the 20's, I got something published in a French journal recently and it has an impact factor of 50, so I am now worshiped among my peers (joke), the key journal in my area of research is ranked 52, I hope to get something into a journal ranked 72. The top ranked journal in Australia is the "Medical Journal of Australia" with a ranking of 99.

      "Nature" has a ranking of 890

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

      "Overall, the described Leaf Area Index trends represent a significant alteration of the productive capacity of terrestrial vegetation through anthropogenic influences."

      "Nature" just showed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past few decades. CO₂ is plant food, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy.
      -

      Comment


      • Originally posted by agrid View Post
        To put all this peer review stuff in perspective, several of the Australian journals I've published in have an H Index (impact factor) in the 20's, I got something published in a French journal recently and it has an impact factor of 50, so I am now worshiped among my peers (joke), the key journal in my area of research is ranked 52, I hope to get something into a journal ranked 72. The top ranked journal in Australia is the "Medical Journal of Australia" with a ranking of 99.

        "Nature" has a ranking of 890

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

        "Overall, the described Leaf Area Index trends represent a significant alteration of the productive capacity of terrestrial vegetation through anthropogenic influences."

        "Nature" just showed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past few decades. CO₂ is plant food, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy.
        What about in the dark?
        They hung a sign up in our town "If you live it up, you won't live it down"-Tom Waits

        Comment


        • Originally posted by agrid View Post
          To put all this peer review stuff in perspective, several of the Australian journals I've published in have an H Index (impact factor) in the 20's, I got something published in a French journal recently and it has an impact factor of 50, so I am now worshiped among my peers (joke), the key journal in my area of research is ranked 52, I hope to get something into a journal ranked 72. The top ranked journal in Australia is the "Medical Journal of Australia" with a ranking of 99.

          "Nature" has a ranking of 890

          http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html

          "Overall, the described Leaf Area Index trends represent a significant alteration of the productive capacity of terrestrial vegetation through anthropogenic influences."

          "Nature" just showed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past few decades. CO₂ is plant food, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy.
          For a scientist you show little analysis beyond your dogmatic belief, and you resort to simplistic conclusions.


          It is still sad that climate science is still a political subject (waiting for a qualified climatolist to contribute to this thread rather than armchair/internet experts/bullshit)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Skut View Post
            For a scientist you show little analysis beyond your dogmatic belief, and you resort to simplistic conclusions.


            It is still sad that climate science is still a political subject (waiting for a qualified climatolist to contribute to this thread rather than armchair/internet experts/bullshit)
            I've been promoted, I'm now Principal Scientist.
            -

            Comment

            Working...
            X